Catcher's Obstruction with Malicious Contact - Did we get it right?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm sorry, that's incorrect. Catcher's obstruction is a delayed dead ball, and the ensuing playing action counts and must be factored in. The INT by R1 kills the play.

At that point, the two options are:
1. R1 out (and ejected for MC) AND BR out on the INT, inning over; or
2. BR awarded 1B on the OBS, R1 out (and ejected for MC) and other runners return on the INT.

You don't skip the out on R1 just because he's ejected. The out is for INT, the ejection is for MC. These penalties are not part of the choice that comes with the OBS penalty.

You'd "skip" the out on R1 if it was for "normal" interference. The result of that play would be bases loaded and a run in.

IMO, the fact that it's malicious changes the play, and the ruling.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You'd "skip" the out on R1 if it was for "normal" interference. The result of that play would be bases loaded and a run in.

IMO, the fact that it's malicious changes the play, and the ruling.

Bob, what's your citation for this ruling? I've been taught to penalize offenses in the order in which they were committed. I don't pass on (normal) INT because of a prior catcher's obstruction.

Without the malicious contact, I still have R1 out, R2 and R3 return on the INT, and BR awarded 1B on the OBS.

Edited to add: the only case play my cursory search turns up with both OBS and INT penalizes both, and it explicitly articulates the principle of penalizing the infractions in the order in which they occur (usually OBS then INT, since INT generally kills the play). See 8.3.2H.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Bob, what's your citation for this ruling? I've been taught to penalize offenses in the order in which they were committed. I don't pass on (normal) INT because of a prior catcher's obstruction.

You *can't* enforce the catcher's obstruction first, since you don't know *how* to enforce it until the play is over. So, you have to enforce the interference first, then (because the result of that is that not everyone advanced a base) you enforce the obstruction.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You *can't* enforce the catcher's obstruction first, since you don't know *how* to enforce it until the play is over. So, you have to enforce the interference first, then (because the result of that is that not everyone advanced a base) you enforce the obstruction.

So, if the offense has the choice of the obstruction or the play, what are their choices?

[johnnyg08]

Double play or R1 at 1B, runners return to because of the MC, take your pick

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

So, if the offense has the choice of the obstruction or the play, what are their choices?

Play: R1 interferes (non-maliciously) with the intent to break up a DP -- so R1 and BR are out other runners return.

Obs: Either R1 is out and bases are loaded, or R1 isn't out, a run scores and bases are loaded.

I can't see a coach electing the "play".

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You *can't* enforce the catcher's obstruction first, since you don't know *how* to enforce it until the play is over. So, you have to enforce the interference first, then (because the result of that is that not everyone advanced a base) you enforce the obstruction.

Bob, by your way of proceeding, you would agree with me. On the INT (without MC) we call out R1, and R2, R3 return. Then award BR 1B, which no longer forces the other runners (and they weren't stealing). The result is bases loaded, 2 outs.

However, I believe that penalties are enforced in the order of the offenses. The award for OBS can't be made until the end of playing action, but it doesn't follow that it can't be made first. So on the OBS, award BR 1B and the other runners (for the moment) are forced to advance. Then on the INT (without MC), R1 out, other runners return. (Of course, I would place the runners by their "net" award, not send R3 home and then back to 3B.)

Either way, no run scores on this play, with or without malicious contact.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Bob, by your way of proceeding, you would agree with me. On the INT (without MC) we call out R1, and R2, R3 return. Then award BR 1B, which no longer forces the other runners (and they weren't stealing). The result is bases loaded, 2 outs.

However, I believe that penalties are enforced in the order of the offenses. The award for OBS can't be made until the end of playing action, but it doesn't follow that it can't be made first. So on the OBS, award BR 1B and the other runners (for the moment) are forced to advance. Then on the INT (without MC), R1 out, other runners return. (Of course, I would place the runners by their "net" award, not send R3 home and then back to 3B.)

Either way, no run scores on this play, with or without malicious contact.

IMO, once the CI is enforced, then the INT by R1 is negated.

All the choices are "logical." I recall that this (or a similar) play has been debated over the years with both sides (enforce in the order they happened; "nest" the penalties) making the same claims as in this thread. I don't recall any AO or interp to help guide us.

[PeteBooth]

Not true.

Suppose R3 touched the plate before the MC. In FED, we return runners to the base last occupied At TOI unless it is a FPSR violation which is not the case in the OP.


Depending upon what "camp" you are in, on CO or CI followed by a play, the PU is supposed to explain to the offensive manger his options. So after playing action ends, at that point in time EXCEPT for the MC the runners are not placed anywhere until the manger is consulted. However, as Bob said why would a coach not want the penalty as presented in this OP. To do otherwise the inning would be over.

IMO, the only "Monkey Wrench" in the equation is the MC which in addition to the OBS in FED MUST be penalized.

If we did not have MC, the call is simple

The interference is "waved off" because all runners including the BR did not advance a base so enforce the CO. Since bases were juiced, R3 scores, R2 to third so on and so forth.

Since we had MC TIME was called at the moment the MC took place, so if R3 ALREADY crossed the plate, his run counts. If he didn't cross the plate, then R3 is returned to third base. R2 stays at second R1 is out on the MC and the BR to first.

Pete Booth

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

If we did not have MC, the call is simple

The interference is "waved off" because all runners including the BR did not advance a base so enforce the CO. Since bases were juiced, R3 scores, R2 to third so on and so forth.

Citation please.

[prosec34]

I defer to you guys on being an expert on this, but I think there's two outs and the bases loaded with no runs scored.

You don't apply the obstruction penalty until after the play, and by that time, R1 is out. Thus R2 and R3 aren't forced to advance.

[PeteBooth]

Do not need a citation it's in the rules under CO.

After playing action is over the question is

1. Did all runners including the BR advance at least one base.

If the answer is yes then the CO is ignored

If the answer is NO

Then you enforce the CO penalty.

It's that simple and spelled out in the rules. In effect infractions (except MC) that occured after the OBS do not count so if there was interference IN EFFECT it didn't happen because the CO penalty "trumps" it if you will.

IMO, the only "wrinkle" in the OP was we had MC.

Pete Booth